Jonathan Turley Says Judge Merchan “Crossed the Line” by Suggesting a Witness Be Called by Alvin Bragg’s Team

[struth]

The prosecutor.

The defense too if they don't bring it up at trial.

Wow. So nobody disagrees

 

[Catsnmeters]

Wow. So nobody disagrees

Math is not your strong point I suppose.

 

[struth]

Math is not your strong point I suppose.

I continue to wait for you to provide us with one person....you haven't

 

[Catsnmeters]

I continue to wait for you to provide us with one person....you haven't

I provided you two.

 

[struth]

I provided you two.

hahahah, why do you keep lying?

 

[Catsnmeters]

hahahah, why do you keep lying?

I'm not.

Is it your contention that the prosecutor is not a lawyer?

 

[wamose]

Marchan is a corrupt asshole, He was picked by establishment Dems. to destroy Trump. Why is anyone surprised to see what's happening?

 

[WEATHER53]

This insipid moron witch hunter does not have Any line he won’t cross
Witch hunts don’t follow law, they follow suspicions and accusals

 

[JoeB131]

They made a movie about Jonathan Hurley

 

[JoeB131]

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Friday that the judge in former President Donald Trump’s trial crossed “the line” with a suggestion to prosecutors.

New York Judge Juan Merchan suggested that Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg testify after prosecutors from the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sought to introduce Weisselberg’s severance package into evidence, according to Politico. Turley called the suggestion “very unusual” when asked about the development by Fox News host Martha MacCallum.

“It reminds me of a judge when I started out as a lawyer who was notorious because he would say, ‘Is the defense ready to present its case,’ and turn to the prosecutors and say ‘Are we ready to present our case?’ This is a little bit crossing the line. You’re not supposed to be making this a mutual effort,” Turley said.

Wessielburg's name keeps coming up in this trial, but neither side has asked him to testify.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wessielburg's name keeps coming up in this trial, but neither side has asked him to testify.

Ya, you would think that the defense would have been all over having Wessielburg on the witness list to clear up that Trump knew nothing.

Interesting that the defense didn't call him as a witness.

WW

 

[struth]

Ya, you would think that the defense would have been all over having Wessielburg on the witness list to clear up that Trump knew nothing.

Interesting that the defense didn't call him as a witness.

WW

Why? It’s not their job to clear it up, it’s the states job to prove it. You’d think they’d call him to show trump knew

 

[JoeB131]

Why? It’s not their job to clear it up, it’s the states job to prove it. You’d think they’d call him to show trump knew

This is a guy who went to jail for lying on Trump's behalf. No reason for the Prosecution to call him.

I'm more curious why the defense didn't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why? It’s not their job to clear it up, it’s the states job to prove it. You’d think they’d call him to show trump knew

It's their job to defend their client, meaning a responsible defense attorney is going to put a witness stand that would exonerate their client.

Unless of course they know that Weisselberg wouldn't exonerate their client, that the testimony would actually just be another nail in the case driving toward a conviction.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is a guy who went to jail for lying on Trump's behalf. No reason for the Prosecution to call him.

I'm more curious why the defense didn't.

What would have been a hoot is for Weisselberg to have been called to testify.

He starts taking the 5th. The prosecution then files a motion with the court to not prosecute for any crimes related to the case. Effectively removing Weisselberg's 5th Amendment claim. You can't claim the 5th Amendment to protect someone else.

WW

 

[struth]

This is a guy who went to jail for lying on Trump's behalf. No reason for the Prosecution to call him.

I'm more curious why the defense didn't.

Um who weren’t to jail for lying on trumps behalf?

Why would the defense? They have nothing to prove

 

[struth]

It's their job to defend their client, meaning a responsible defense attorney is going to put a witness stand that would exonerate their client.

Unless of course they know that Weisselberg wouldn't exonerate their client, that the testimony would actually just be another nail in the case driving toward a conviction.

WW

Why? The defense has nothing to prove. The reality is the state has no case, so why waste anyones time with more witness

 

[JoeB131]

Um who weren’t to jail for lying on trumps behalf?

Why would the defense? They have nothing to prove

Um, yeah, guy, the Defense didn't put up anyone but one clown who imploded on the witness stand.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why? The defense has nothing to prove.

Correct, the defense need not present any defense at all.

They are free to simply claim the prosecution didn't prove their case.

The reality is the state has no case, so why waste anyones time with more witness

The reality is the prosecution entered mounds of evidence and called over 20 witnesses to prove their case.

This week it will be before the jury to render their verdict.

WW

 

[struth]

Um, yeah, guy, the Defense didn't put up anyone but one clown who imploded on the witness stand.

They don't have to put anyone up....but they did put up Cohen's lawyer who testified that Cohen repeatedly stated Trump knew nothing.